5-4 before the trial court, and thus the issue is waived. See A.K. v. State, 915 N.E.2d 554, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (claim of error waived for failure to present it before the trial court), reh'g denied, trans. denied. [12] C.R.'s hearing was before the bench.
However, as noted above, his argument is waived for failure to present it before the trial court. See A.K. v. State, 915 N.E.2d 554, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (claim of error regarding timing of juvenile fact-finding hearing waived for failure to present it before the trial court), trans. denied. To overcome waiver, L.F. must demonstrate fundamental error.
[18] We noted that this Court has rejected this argument "on at least two occasions." Id. at 1149 (citing A.K. v. State , 915 N.E.2d 554, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("the juvenile code does not mandate dismissal of the charges when the sixty-day deadline is not met"), reh'g denied , trans. denied ; J.D. v. State , 909 N.E.2d 1035, 1037-1038 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("[w]ithout clear statutory authorization, we cannot say that a violation of the sixty-day limit of Section 2(b) required the trial court to dismiss the allegations")).
[8] K.G. contends that dismissal is the proper remedy for a violation of Section 2(b), but we have rejected such an argument on at least two occasions. See A.K. v. State , 915 N.E.2d 554, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("the juvenile code does not mandate dismissal of the charges when the sixty-day deadline is not met"), trans. denied ; J.D. v. State , 909 N.E.2d 1035, 1037–38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("[w]ithout clear statutory authorization, we cannot say that a violation of the sixty-day limit of Section 2(b) required the trial court to dismiss the allegations").